Iran Test-Fires Sub-To-Surface Missile

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, they do.

Now and again, the CV leaves the Gulf, but it is generally on station year round. (Occasional port visits for a few days to various ports in the Gulf, or out of it, based on political demands.) The CV, or CVN mostly these days, supplies sorties to the Air Component Commander/Joint Force Commander for air operations in the CENTCOM theater of operations. Yes, I spent some time over there.

True, but there's quite a lot of competition between Air Force and Navy - I expect the Navy would want to be part of the action too. They don't want to appear redundant when the next budget is allocated...

There is a bit more to it than that, of course, but that consideration, the old "roles and missions," bogey is part of it. The other is macro political. There are political sensitivities about how many American warplanes can be based in various Gulf States. The Carrier provides extra sorties without having to re negotiate those issues, or use up ramp space for other aircraft, like tankers, etc.

As to "evidence" of the US keeping track of subs, if anyone who does that posts it on this board, a security violation has just been made. I spent parts of the Cold War trying to keep track of Russian subs. It was hard then, and it is hard now, though for different reasons.

How about you novices trust the Navy to do their mission, eh? Part of that is keeping an eye on subs in threat countries. The world is not a TV show, nor a debating hall, nor a video game.

Sheesh.

DR

 

[webfusion]

LW suggests:

there's no chance on Earth that I would sail a carrier group through the Straits of Hormuz: confined waters in the full view (from shore) of a not-so-friendly nation that has a sizable collection of anti-shipping missiles.

U.S. naval forces in the Gulf of Iran (Persian Gulf) apparently include Carrier Task Force 50 of the 5th Fleet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_5th_Fleet

and

http://www.navysite.de/navy/fleet.htm#5th

and

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar1996/n03141996_9603143.html


In the past, it certainly seems that operations of the major US carriers were inside the Gulf itself.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/where.htm

 

[egslim]

Not really. The real tradeoff is not between speed and noise, but between speed and cost.

True, diesel-electric subs have a cost-advantage too - as well as being harder to detect. The only inherent advantage a nuclear sub has is longer range and higher speed. Iran needs neither for operations in the Gulf, small size and less noise are far more valuable there.

I'm asking because I don't know. It would seem a logical thing to do, as opposed to tailing, say, Canadian subs.

Oh, I'm sure they would want to tail those Iranian subs - the questions are, can they 1) find them and 2) track them for an extended period of time? Under poor sonar conditions and interference from heavy sealane traffic? That seems to be rather against the odds.

How about you novices trust the Navy to do their mission, eh? Part of that is keeping an eye on subs in threat countries.

Unfortunately, on the other side are people who have to do their mission too. It's dangerous to assume they'll just roll over and die, the moment the US Navy snaps its fingers. If war breaks, there may very well be casualties on both sides.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As to "evidence" of the US keeping track of subs, if anyone who does that posts it on this board, a security violation has just been made. I spent parts of the Cold War trying to keep track of Russian subs. It was hard then, and it is hard now, though for different reasons.

How about you novices trust the Navy to do their mission, eh? Part of that is keeping an eye on subs in threat countries. The world is not a TV show, nor a debating hall, nor a video game.

So the public has no need to have any understanding what the meaning of this development in Iran's armament means? Knowing how much a threat its subs are is something that the public should have some capacity at understanding.

 

[egslim]

So the public has no need to have any understanding what the meaning of this development in Iran's armament means? Knowing how much a threat its subs are is something that the public should have some capacity at understanding.

While it is quite long, this .pdf http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity....ed.pdf#search="US navy incompetent geocities"
contains a number of facts about operations and exercises, as well as statements from Navy personel that raise doubt on the US Navy's ability to combat diesel-electric subs. As well as evidence that the US Navy prefers to ignore these problems rather than face them.

For example, the fact that during exercises a Chilean diesel sub moved within the perimeter of a Carrier Battle Group for several days. The US forces knew it would operate in attack mode, but were unable to find it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So the public has no need to have any understanding what the meaning of this development in Iran's armament means? Knowing how much a threat its subs are is something that the public should have some capacity at understanding.

No, landlubber, the public should understand that the Navy keeps track of subs all over the world 24/7. It is part of their job.

Thanks for playing.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Unfortunately, on the other side are people who have to do their mission too. It's dangerous to assume they'll just roll over and die, the moment the US Navy snaps its fingers. If war breaks, there may very well be casualties on both sides.

And your point would be what? The enemy always gets a vote in a war, it's in the nature of the beast.

While we chased Russian subs during the Cold War, and kept track of them, the known was that should the shooting start, ships would sink, people would die, and both (or all) sides would shoot at each other with intent to hit and kill.

That is what war is. I fail to see how raising that added anything to the discussion regarding keeping track of subs, or keeping a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

Yes, a CV could get hit, particularly if the lads in the Iranian Navy are very clever and attack by surprise. I am a bit concerned about the Sunburst misisle myself, and the potential floodig of the Persian Gulf with mines.

Part of putting ships to sea to undertake national policy goals is

RISK! Hey, they might shoot at you! (Whoa, who'd have thought that?)

Remember the USS Liberty, the USS Pueblo, and the USS Stark.

DR

 

[egslim]

And your point would be what? The enemy always gets a vote in a war, it's in the nature of the beast.

Indeed. That was my point, and it was in response to posts like these:

I'm trying to imagine how long their subs will last were an actual conflict with the U.S. erupt. Seconds, I imagine.

and

Anyways, I imagine that Iranian subs are pretty noisy and have limited abilities underwater (probably can't stay down very long) so the US Navy can probably track them prety well.

Statements which give the impression the US Navy would be able to act with impunity, in case of a war with Iran.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Indeed. That was my point, and it was in response to posts like these:

and

Statements which give the impression the US Navy would be able to act with impunity, in case of a war with Iran.

Well, no one in the Navy thinks it will "act with impunity" in the event of Iran trying to start something in The Gulf. I'd say many a bead of sweat is broken on a daily basis due to Iran issues in Fifth Fleet, and elsewhere.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, landlubber, the public should understand that the Navy keeps track of subs all over the world 24/7. It is part of their job.

Thanks for playing.

DR

So the US navy knows where all the subs in the world are 24/7? That seems highly unlikely depending on what defintion of track you use. Enough to have a general idea vs absolute positioning.

Then there are also cases of say the air force declaring the situation around a particular crash top secret so that they can hide the poor maintence that caused it, national security and all that. But that was durring the cold war, the military is now compleatly different and not just covering their asses, you have to take their word for it though.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So the US navy knows where all the subs in the world are 24/7? That seems highly unlikely depending on what defintion of track you use. Enough to have a general idea vs absolute positioning.

Then there are also cases of say the air force declaring the situation around a particular crash top secret so that they can hide the poor maintence that caused it, national security and all that. But that was durring the cold war, the military is now compleatly different and not just covering their asses, you have to take their word for it though.

How about you don't try to put words into my mouth?

As to the rest, landlubber, you don't pay for a zero defects military, so why should you expect one? You get more than what you pay for, which is the best equipment minimum bid, and Congressional influence brokering, can buy.

The laws and regulations on aircraft mishap investigations are a bit more complex than your layman's cum CTer's assessment permits. Since your attitude just about leaps off the page, may I suggest you go fly a kite?

DR

 

[Meffy]

I'm no physicist, but I can say with authority that satellites don't use radar and never will to image anything on Earth.

What exactly is your "authority" for making such a statement?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/imaging.html <-- doubtless a hoax
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=418 <-- transparent fakery
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Earth?order=Instrument&sort=ASC&start=20 <-- fabricated
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogEarth.htm <-- near bottom; obviously fraudulent

If you want any more you can google them yourself. But why bother? They're figments of my imagination.

 

[egslim]

As to the rest, landlubber, you don't pay for a zero defects military, so why should you expect one?

Since the US military's budget is about equal to the sum of all other nation's combined, I find the complaint about not receiving enough money rather laughable.

You get more than what you pay for, which is the best equipment minimum bid,

Hardly. There's often a "buy before you try" policy, where serialproduction of new weapons is started before tests of the final version have been completed. If the final version does not perform as specified - too bad, it can't be cancelled anymore. Also, "minimum bid" has lost most of its use - the number of defensecontractors has decreased sharply, so there is much less competition. Worse, in several cases weapons' purchase is decided not on the basis of quality or requirements, but to prevent the company in question from going broke.
Subcontracts are spread across as many states as possible, so that many members of Congress who could oppose a purchase risk losing jobs in their state because of it.

 

[Chaos]

Well, no one in the Navy thinks it will "act with impunity" in the event of Iran trying to start something in The Gulf. I'd say many a bead of sweat is broken on a daily basis due to Iran issues in Fifth Fleet, and elsewhere.

DR

Good.

As long as the Navy, at least, knows what it can do and what it can´t, I guess we can safely ignore people who are too proud to try to know.

 

[Huntster]

Wasn't the super-silent US submarine fleet moth-balled?

You mean the Los Angeles class?

Some of the boats are being decommissioned, but I don't think the entire fleet is planned to be mothballed.

 

[egslim]

Good.

As long as the Navy, at least, knows what it can do and what it can´t, I guess we can safely ignore people who are too proud to try to know.

Let's just hope the politicians know it too.

 

[egslim]

You mean the Los Angeles class?

Some of the boats are being decommissioned, but I don't think the entire fleet is planned to be mothballed.

New submarines are being built too, the Virginia class.

More advanced than the USS Honolulu, which will be decommisioned according to the article, are 31 688 class and 23 688I-class subs. Add three Seawolfs and probably already a few Virginia's, and the total comes to 57 submarines plus the Virginia's already in service. I guess roughly 60 modern subs are in service today, which doesn't seem too shabby.

 

[Rob Lister]

How about you don't try to put words into my mouth?

As to the rest, landlubber, you don't pay for a zero defects military, so why should you expect one? You get more than what you pay for, which is the best equipment minimum bid, and Congressional influence brokering, can buy.

The laws and regulations on aircraft mishap investigations are a bit more complex than your layman's cum CTer's assessment permits. Since your attitude just about leaps off the page, may I suggest you go fly a kite?

DR

It is probably best that you, like I had to do, go fly a kite. I agree with your assessment 100% but you're not going to get anyone else to agree with it unless you provide evidence, which you legally can't. And even if you could, they still wouldn't believe it. For some Military=fake/evil/bad/corrupt. You won't change their minds.

 

[egslim]

It is probably best that you, like I had to do, go fly a kite. I agree with your assessment 100% but you're not going to get anyone else to agree with it unless you provide evidence, which you legally can't. And even if you could, they still wouldn't believe it. For some Military=fake/evil/bad/corrupt. You won't change their minds.

I can, however, provide evidence that the US Navy has at times difficulty defeating diesel-electric subs: http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/documents/is the us. navy overrated.pdf Appendix A, page 85 lists US Navy ships 'sunk' during international exercises. The table is based on publicly availably sources, which obviously are only a subset of all 'sinkings' during exercises.

As for corruption, I think it's safe to assume that wherever politicians and large defensecontractors meet, the interests of those two parties (money, jobs, profit) will take precedence over those of the nation (an effective, cost-efficient military). Unless you believe politicians have the best interest of the country at heart, instead of their own re-election.
Not to mention the historical fact of competition between members of the armed forces for an as large as possible piece of the Defensive spending-pie by generals and admirals.

 

[Rob Lister]

I can, however, provide evidence that the US Navy has at times difficulty defeating diesel-electric subs: http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/documents/is the us. navy overrated.pdf Appendix A, page 85 lists US Navy ships 'sunk' during international exercises. The table is based on publicly availably sources, which obviously are only a subset of all 'sinkings' during exercises.

You're right. I don't know about Darth but I was just blowing smoke. I'll come clean now. Truth is always best. Fact is, our hunter/killers don't stand a chance against the Russian-made diesels. Never have, never will. Like their tanks and other weapon systems, their subs are far-far superior.

Darth might continue to argue but I, for one, admit debate defeat. I was just standing up for old glory.

As for the corruption, it extends from the top of the food chain all the way down to the lowliest airman, seamen, soldier and marine. We all took a course in Basic and Advanced Corruption in boot camp and had to re-qualify every two-years. Lord help the service member that didn't cheat on the re-qual exam (cheating was required!).

Best,
Rob